It’s a
bit more difficult than just normal capacitor switching, else all
those sharp young graduates our universities produce every year would
have done it long ago.

Any
separation of opposite charges is already known and proven in physics
to exhibit broken symmetry in the violent virtual state energy flux of
the vacuum. Among other things, that’s why Lee and Yang got the Nobel
Prize in 1957.

So what
does “broken symmetry of opposite charges” – where the symmetry is
broken in the vacuum’s flux exchange with the charges – really mean?

It
means that, as the virtual photons from the vacuum are absorbed by
that dipole, not all the absorbed energy is radiated back in virtual form. Ergo, some
of it gets integrated coherently (we specified the exact mechanism,
previously). And that part gets re-emitted by the dipole as real,
observable photons pouring out at light speed in all directions. This
steady outpouring of real EM energy establishes and continuously
replenishes the associated “static” EM fields and potentials
associated with that source dipole.

So
“static” is not really static. Instead, the “static” field is a steady
state moving field, moving at light speed. It’s just that it is also a
continuous “free” emission from any dipolarity. Best to use Van
Flandern’s analysis of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall, with no moving
internal parts, would be analogous to the way electrical engineering
presently (and erroneously) regards static fields. A nonfrozen
waterfall (consider a “perfect” one) would still look like the same
waterfall, but it would also be comprised of internal parts in motion,
with each part moving on but being always replaced by one coming along
behind.

Well,
now that should be interesting. It means that every dipolarity (which
a priori has a potential difference between its charges) is an
absolutely free source of EM energy, taken directly from the active
vacuum. The basis for that has been in physics for nearly a half
century, but in that time it hasn’t migrated across the university
campus from the physics department to the EE department, and got them
to change their horribly flawed and decrepit EE model. That model
still assumes a material ether, more than a century after it was
falsified in 1887.

Now
consider an “isolated” charge. In physics we know that the charge is
quite different from how electrical engineers view it. First, a charge
polarizes its vacuum medium. So – somewhat incredibly – the “bare”
charge in the middle is infinite, and clustered around it are bubbling
virtual charges of opposite sign, also infinite in total magnitude at
any time. But the external observer or instrument, looking through
that surrounding vacuum polarization screen, only sees a finite
difference – and that finite difference is the classical textbook
value of the charge for a given charged particle, etc.

So when
we have a single charge – even just a single electron – we still have
two sets of infinite charge and infinite energy. We also have a
special kind of dipolarity, and the broken symmetry of that dipolarity
is continually absorbing disordered incoherent virtual photon energy
from the vacuum, integrating and reordering it, and re-emitting it as
real EM energy.

The
electrical engineering and classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics
do admit that the source of all EM fields, potentials, and their
energy is in fact their associated source charges. However, those
silly models also assume there is absolutely no energy input to those
same source charges.

So
every electrical engineering department, professor, and textbook
continues to teach a model implying that every EM field, EM potential,
and joule of EM energy in the universe, is and has been freely
created, from nothing at all. That’s a total violation of the
conservation of energy law!

They do
this unwittingly because their model doesn’t even model the active
vacuum exchange (or a curved spacetime). It assumes that the vacuum
environment and spacetime environment are inert – which has been
falsified in physics for nearly a century.

All
this is just to set in proper perspective what’s going on with a
statically charged capacitor or any other dipolarity. It is in fact
pouring out EM energy – real energy – steadily, which our instruments
detect as a so-called “static” field.

Now
let’s talk about “catching and using” some energy from such a flow.

Suppose
I have some charge that is “pinned” and therefore “static”. It isn’t
free to move and thus form a current.

And
suppose I place a dipolar source of potential V close to that pinned
charge. Well, V is actually a set of EM energy flows (Whittaker 1903).
So the potential energy V will flow through the short intervening
space and flow over and around that charge q. The ambient vacuum,
having flux and energy density, is therefore also a scalar potential.
Any other scalar potential V is just a change to that ambient vacuum
potential. So the “flow of potential” is actually the flow of the
change of the ambient vacuum potential.

When
the V flows around and over the static charge q, that means that the
local vacuum in which q is embedded – and with which it continuously
exchanges energy and from which the charge q continuously extracts the
energy for its fields and potentials – now changes. So the “activity
rate” (or more properly, the reaction cross section) of the charge
alters, and the charge now interacts with a different flux rate and
thus emits a different EM rate, increasing or decreasing its
associated EM fields and potentials accordingly.

In
short, the charge q is freely “potentialized” , as engineers put it.

Now by
definition there is no current involved, and so there has been no
power produced and no work produced. Everything so far is purely free
for the taking.

From
any given nonzero source potential V, one can “catch” as much energy W
as one desires, if one uses enough charge q. The equation is W = Vq.
And it costs absolutely no work etc. to get that Vq (the units of
which are joules).

But
instead of doing things in space, we are taught to do them in
electrical circuits. The wires direct the free flow of potential from
the source, etc. And the collecting charges used are the Drude
electrons bouncing around inside the conductors. Here we see a
problem: The charges are not “pinned” and are very, very quick to
respond to any change (something like 10exp(-16) or so seconds
“relaxation time” required to “get moving”). So as we potentialize
(catch some energy on) those charges, they immediately move as
current, and the energy is being dissipated in the circuit as work.

And
here is the diabolical characteristic of the standard closed current
loop circuit. We are foolishly taught to just “wire in” the dipolarity
of the source dipole (the generator or battery). Voila! That stupid
circuit now equalizes the back emf and the forward emf, and also makes
the total forward current equal to the total back current (through the
back emf).

So
precisely half of all the EM energy now freely collected in that
external circuit, is used to do nothing but do work on that source
dipolarity, knocking all the charges back out of there and destroying
the dipole. That destroys the flow of energy called “voltage”
(actually potential). Hence half the work done by the external circuit
is simply to destroy its own source of freely flowing energy from the
vacuum. The other half of the work is done in the loads and losses of
the external circuit. That means that less work gets done in the load,
than was done on the “external” source dipolarity to destroy it.

Well,
how do we keep such a stupid circuit functioning, so the load will
continue to be powered? We have to do something to restore that source
dipolarity again. In short, we have to put in some external energy to
the battery of generator, and we have to furnish and pay for that
energy. The energy input we pay for is then used to push those
internal charges back apart again and restore the dipole, thereby
restoring the free extraction of energy from the vacuum that gives the
free flow of potential down the conductors of the external circuit.

In a
100% efficient generator, we would have to input precisely as much
energy to restore the source dipolarity, as the work done by the
external circuit on that dipolarity to destroy it.

So we
would always have to input more additional energy, than the energy the
stupid circuit let get to the load to power it.

In
short, electrical engineers are taught to unwittingly use only
circuits that destroy their own power source faster than they power
their loads. That guarantees COP<1.0, and it also comfortably keeps
that power meter on our homes and offices and industries. It keeps all
that oil and coil and gas burning, all the pipelines, all the long
transmission lines, the great power plants, and the entire armada of
biosphere-poisoning apparatuses that constitute our present “power
system”.

But
back to the static situation with the charges q pinned, and a source
of external energy (external potential V) momentarily connected.
Suppose we keep those collecting charges q “pinned” long enough to get
the potential V flowed across and around them, potentializing them so
that they statically collect some energy W as W = Vq. Now we have Vq
joules of energy freely collected. We did not damage or reduce our
external source of potential V. But we just let the vacuum itself give
us some free energy Vq on those charges q.

Voila!
Now we’ve got the energy “for free” directly from the vacuum. We can
have as much as we wish collected, if we just used enough pinned
charge q for the given voltage V.

And now
let us just DISCONNECT and switch away that source of potential, at
the same time switching in what would have been a shunting diode and
resistive load, so that current can only flow one way through the
load. I now have a completed “external circuit” but one with the
original source of potential disconnected so the circuit can do
nothing to it at all.

So I
have an “energized” or “charged” dipolar complete circuit, containing
a load, and a diode which only allows a flow of electrons in one
direction. That circuit will now “discharge”, pushing electrons as
current through the load, until the back emf rises and destroys the
dipolarity (i.e., until – in EE terms – the collected energy in the
circuit is dissipated in the load).

Assume
for a moment perfect, work-free switching. Then all that costs me
absolutely nothing with respect to my original external source of
potential. So I can do it again. And again. And again.

We can
impulsively power that load “for free” this way, in theory.

In the
real world, of course, one does have some switching costs. But let us
assume that is as efficient as the state of the art allows – such as
photocoupled switching, etc. with very little power used in switching.

Now we
can get Vq joules of work out of the load, with only a smaller
switching cost – let’s say E(sw).

But the
load isn’t 100% efficient either, so only a fraction k of that Vq will
actually be useful external work done by the load.

This
means that I get kVg joules of work output, while using E(sw)
switching joules I have to furnish and pay for.

So I
get a COP = (kVg)/E(sw). If E(sw) < kVg, then I have COP>1.0. And that
obeys every law of physics and every law of thermodynamics.

The
beauty now is that my “external” potential source was not deteriorated
or drained. So I can just do it over and over, and keep on powering
the load. Now we worry about smoothing, etc. for continuous powering,
etc. – but that is all “standard electrical engineering” you can hire
done at any university of EE lab.

The
main points are:

(1)EM energy is ALWAYS an energy flow or a set of flows.

(2)Any dipolarity exhibits broken symmetry in the vacuum
flux, and hence it is an inexhaustible source of real EM energy flow,
like a gushing oil well or flowing river.

(3)If one simply catches and uses some of the “freely
flowing energy”, one is free to use that collected energy as one
wishes and as one is skilled enough to do.

(4)If one uses the standard stupid closed circuit loop and
unpinned charge collectors, one will always guarantee COP<1.0, and one
will always have to continue to pay to “power the darn thing” oneself.

(5)If one never lets the external current (when the
external circuit is in operation and powering its load) flow back
through the back emf of the external source, the source furnishes all
the voltage (potential energy flow) without damage or deterioration.
The source remains “unaffected”. Again, from a given voltage V, one
can extract as much energy W as one wishes. And one can do it in
sequential operations where W = Vq(1) + Vq(2) + Vq(3) + ….+ Vq(i) + …

(6)So by using STATIC potentialization of the energy
collecting process, then switching away the undamaged source of
potential, and THEN allowing discharge of the collected energy to
power the load, the operation can continue with only some switching
costs rather than paying for the energy dissipated in the load.

(7)One moves from the standard “lossy diode” kind of
engineering to a “triode” engineering where the cathode current is
free and one only has to pay for the grid signal for switching and
controlling.